K.T. Sankaran, J.

1. The main question involved in this Writ Petition is whether before passing an order under Section 3(1) of the Kerala Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the KAAPA'), it is necessary that the detaining authority should pass another order declaring that the person concerned is a "known goonda" or "known rowdy." Certain other points are also raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioner which will be dealt with hereunder:

Vikas, the son of the petitioner, was detained in execution of the order of detention dated 18/06/2015 passed by the District Magistrate, Kozhikode. The order was executed on 24/06/2015. The order of detention was confirmed on 20/08/2015 holding that the detenu was liable to be detained for a period of six months. The order of detention and the continued detention are under challenge in this Writ Petition.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that though in Ext. P1 order of detention there is mention that the detenu satisfies the definition of known rowdy under Section 2(p)(iii) of the KAAPA and that he is a known rowdy, there is no order preceding Ext. P1 declaring that the detenu is a known rowdy or a known goonda and therefore, Ext. P1 is liable to be struck down.

2. To comprehend the above contention raised by the petitioner, it is necessary to extract Section 3(1) of the KAAPA.

"3. Power to make orders for detaining Known Goondas and Known Rowdies-(1) The Government or an officer authorised under sub-section (2), may, if satisfied on information received from a Police Officer not below the rank of a Superintendent of Police with regard to the activities of any Known Goonda or Known Rowdy, that with a view to prevent such person from committing any antisocial activity within the State of Kerala in any manner, it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained."

3. "Known rowdy" is defined under Section 2(p) and "known goonda" is defined under Section 2(o) of the KAAPA. Likewise, 2(t) defines "rowdy" and 2(j) defines "goonda". A person can be classified as "known rowdy" under three contingencies mentioned under sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) of Clause (p). That is, he was either convicted for an offence under Clause (t) of Section 2 or he was found on investigation or enquiry by a competent officer or other authority, on complaints initiated by persons other than Police Officers, in three separate instances not forming part of the same transaction, to have committed any offence mentioned in Clause (t) of Section 2. To attract Section 3(1) of the KAAPA, the Government or an officer authorised must be satisfied that with a view to prevent a known goonda or known rowdy from committing any anti-social activity within the State of Kerala in any manner, it is necessary to make an order directing that such person be detained.

4. The learned Counsel submitted that since Section 3(1) speaks of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority with respect to the activities of a known goonda or known rowdy, it means that there must be an order declaring the person concerned to be a known goonda or known rowdy before arriving at the subjective satisfaction spoken to in Section 3(1). In other words, according to the learned Counsel, there must be a separate proceeding by which the person concerned must be held to be a known goonda or known rowdy and only thereafter, the Government or the officer authorised can exercise their power under Section 3(1) of the KAAPA.

5. Going by the scheme of the KAAPA, an order of detention under Section 3(1) shall be passed when the detaining authority arrives at the subjective satisfaction as mentioned in Section 3(1) of the Act. The action to be taken under Section 3(1) is peremptory and not after a long drawn adjudication. It is aimed at preventing the person concerned from indulging in anti-social activities. The definition of 'antisocial activity' in Section 2(a) indicates that th